This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Waisman, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Mimouni, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Waisman, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Mimouni, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Genitourinary Tract

PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 4 October 1999, p. e41

ELECTRONIC ARTICLE:
The Validity of the Uriscreen Test for Early Detection of Urinary Tract Infection in Children

Received Aug 12, 1998; accepted Apr 22, 1999.

Yehezkel Waisman, Elisheva Zerem, Lisa Amir, and Marc Mimouni

From the Unit of Emergency Medicine, Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, Petah Tiqva, and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Objective.  To determine the validity of the Uriscreen, a rapid diagnostic test based on the detection of urine catalase for the early detection of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children, compared with standard urinalysis and dipstick tests.

Study Design.  Cross-sectional study.

Study Population.  Children 1 month to 17 years of age who presented to the emergency department of a pediatric tertiary care center between March and November of 1996 with symptoms suggestive of UTI.

Methods.  Urine specimens obtained from a random sample of 121 patients were evaluated simultaneously for possible UTI by Uriscreen (catalase test), urinalysis (microscopic pyuria), dipstick (leukocyte esterase and nitrite), and quantitative urine culture. All specimens were collected by one of three sterile techniques (midstream void technique, bladder catheterization, or suprapubic aspiration), as appropriate for age, and tested immediately. Using the quantitative urine culture as the gold standard (reference test), the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of all the screening tests were determined and compared. Age, sex, temperature, presenting symptoms, and method of urine collection were recorded for each participant.

Results.  Of the 121 patients, 35 (28.9%) had positive culture results: 30 girls (85.7%) and 5 boys (14.3%). Compared with urinalysis and dipstick tests, Uriscreen had the highest sensitivity (100% vs 88.6% and 97.1%, respectively) and the highest negative predictive value (100% vs 95% and 98.6%, respectively), but the poorest specificity (68.6% vs 88.4% and 82.5%, respectively) and positive predictive value (56.4% vs 75.6% and 69.4%, respectively).

Conclusions.  The clinical use of Uriscreen for the presumptive diagnosis of UTI in children is limited and not significantly superior to urinalysis or the dipstick test. However, because of its 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value and its ease of use, rapidity, and low cost, it is recommended highly for ruling out the diagnosis of UTI. In laboratories, a negative Uriscreen result may prevent the need for performing expensive urine cultures.  Key words:  catalase, pyuria, urinary tract infection, urinalysis, dipstick, screening test, children, infants.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Evid. Based Med.Home page
R. S Wigton
The Uriscreen test was not better than standard urinalysis and dipstick tests for detecting urinary tract infection in children
Evid. Based Med., July 1, 2000; 5(4): 126 - 126.
[Full Text]